Which SSD is best

[teknikal90]

Hey guys, thinking to buy a mcbook pro with SSD.
Is that worth it? Or should I just get a normal Macbook Pro and get an aftermarket one later?
My main concern is reliability. BEtter speed is always nice though.


Thanks

 

[Hellhammer]

so your fav is definetly the Samsung 470 Series, right?

big thanks for your help btw

edit: I just found some news about Samsung 830 SSD Series , which should be released in October! Do you think, they will work as well as the 470 Series in mbp's???

The problem with Samsung 830 is that it will take months before we know for sure how good the drive is. Performance figures can been seen immediately but it can take time before bugs and other issues are found. When you buy a brand new SSD, it's pretty much like buying a pig in a poke.

Have there been any reported issues with sleep/wake beach balls and the Samsung 470?

I'm thinking of bumping up in capacity in SSDs (currently running an intel x25-m G2 160GB) that has been absolutely flawless for over two years but I don't want to sacrifice that reliability

I haven't heard of any issues with the Samsung 470. It seems to be rock solid.

Negatory. I and many others are running the Vertex 3 with no problems.

Consider yourself lucky then, that doesn't mean that nobody is having issues. Plenty of users have reported beachballing and freezes with Vertex 3.

It's been rock solid and blazing fast on my 2011 MBP 17", despite what any supposed "real world" tests might indicate.

I never said it's slow. It just isn't faster than the other SSDs in real world.

 

[xaphod]

new macbook pro arrives sept. 15, which SSD?

<snip/>
I haven't heard of any issues with the Samsung 470. It seems to be rock solid.
<snip/>
I never said it's slow. It just isn't faster than the other SSDs in real world.

Hi Hellhammer - thanks in advance for any advice you can give me. My question is basically whether you have a feeling of whether the SSD 6gbps problems are going to be fixed in the next month or two, and whether I should get the intel 510 or samsung 470 now if I wanted to be within my 14-day window (more below)

Here's where I am: I've just ordered a macbook pro 15", it'll arrive around Sept. 15. I didn't buy the SSD as an option direct from Apple because it's overpriced. For reference, here in Switzerland everything is readily available (SandForce-based SSDs like the Vertex3/HyperX, Marvell-based like intel510/crucialM4, Samsungs, etc). I want to try the SSD I buy in the first 14 days because if it doesn't work then I believe I have the option to still return my macbook (a last-ditch resort but great to have an option still), so i'll probably order one in a week's time.

After reading for about 5 hours on the SSD-6gbps issues, here's what I understand (please correct my misunderstandings):

• All SandForce (2200/2281) SSDs have a possibility of being problematic in a MacBook, and should be avoided since I prioritize reliability / lack of hassle over speed
• The Marvell-based Intel 510 has problems in the macbook too (reference: this thread). It is sometimes cable-related, may depend on which factory / which week the macbook was produced, and the response from Intel is "uhhh, okay I guess we might give you a refund".
• You state that as far as you know, the Samsung 470 is rock solid

And here's the question: based on Anand's fantastic Light Workload 2011 benchmark which I believe closely matches my usage, it appears that the Intel 510 is some 22% faster than the Samsung 470 (direct link to bench comparison, i'm looking at light workload bench, disk busy time). That's fast enough for me to want to take the risk of buying the Intel 510 over the Samsung 470, because they are the same price for me. I know that some Intel owners have problems, but do you know if any new macbook users are reporting that they work okay? Anand seems to like the Intel510 (recommends it over SF drives), but i'm not sure he's read thru that big intel-community thread I linked to above...

Finally, if you think that it's worth waiting beyond my 14-day macbook grace-period for new SSDs to come out, lemme know... but right now i'm leaning toward the intel 510.

All help much appreciated, cheers!

 

[2hvy4grvty]

If the 510 and the 470 are the same price, get the 510. No questions asked.

The issue of reliability between the big three (crucial, intel, and samsung) is fractions at best. You're equally unlikely to get problems with any of the three.

That said, actual speed difference is also minimal. 470 is generally the slowest of the bunch (since it's last gen hardware, the 830 might change things), whereas the M4 and the 510 trade blows doing different tasks.

In short, out of those three, let your budget decide.

 

[AppleGoat]

I would beg to differ. Right now, my second Marvell-based SSD lies in a box on the counter -- and it's not waiting for me to open it. I tried everything to get the drive to work, but no luck. Many have had a good experience with this drive, but you can't count me among them. Thus, to say it is on par with the Samsung 470 in terms of reliability is not exactly true. I don't recall hearing one bad thing about the Samsung. My next drive will be one.

In the interim, I've gone back to the stock 5400rpm drive, and to be honest, the performance is a lot smoother and there is no stuttering at all. For instance, the HDD reads my USB thumb drive immediately, I suspected all along there was a delay with the M4.

 

[treestar]

The issue of reliability between the big three (crucial, intel, and samsung) is fractions at best. You're equally unlikely to get problems with any of the three.

The 510 does not use an Intel controller. It is different than all other Intel drives. It cannot share the reputation of other Intel drives with Intel controllers. Lots of people have problems with the 510.

 

[xaphod]

I would beg to differ. Right now, my second Marvell-based SSD lies in a box on the counter -- and it's not waiting for me to open it. I tried everything to get the drive to work, but no luck. Many have had a good experience with this drive, but you can't count me among them. ...

Hi AppleGoat ... some q's for ya
What is your SATA config, 6/3gbps (main/optibay) or 6/6gbps? What week was your macbook manufactured and what type is it? Link to util. Which SSD is it, an intel? crucial?

thanks!

 

[AppleGoat]

Hi AppleGoat ... some q's for ya
What is your SATA config, 6/3gbps (main/optibay) or 6/6gbps? What week was your macbook manufactured and what type is it? Link to util. Which SSD is it, an intel? crucial?

thanks!

I had the Crucial M4. Just shipped it back. Not sure when my MBP was manufactured, but I bought it in early March. Therefore, my optibay is 3gbps. From my findings, I don't believe there is a connection between SATA III problems and the manufacturing date. It was originally a theory of mine but, scanning the forums, the grousing hasn't been limited to those with older '11 MacBooks.

----------

My question is basically whether you have a feeling of whether the SSD 6gbps problems are going to be fixed in the next month or two, and whether I should get the intel 510 or samsung 470 now if I wanted to be within my 14-day window (more below)

Who knows? Crucial has released two firmware updates that were meant to resolve the issue, and for many, they did. However, if the problems persist for you, what sense is there squandering the best days of your drive's life waiting for a fix?

 

[Hellhammer]

My question is basically whether you have a feeling of whether the SSD 6gbps problems are going to be fixed in the next month or two

The issues have existed for so long that I doubt that they will be fixed anytime soon. A new FW can also come with new series of issues, I wouldn't start counting on fixes.

And here's the question: based on Anand's fantastic Light Workload 2011 benchmark which I believe closely matches my usage, it appears that the Intel 510 is some 22% faster than the Samsung 470 (direct link to bench comparison, i'm looking at light workload bench, disk busy time). That's fast enough for me to want to take the risk of buying the Intel 510 over the Samsung 470, because they are the same price for me. I know that some Intel owners have problems, but do you know if any new macbook users are reporting that they work okay? Anand seems to like the Intel510 (recommends it over SF drives), but i'm not sure he's read thru that big intel-community thread I linked to above...

The problem with these tests is that you must understand how they work. The regular bench represents roughly two weeks of use. Anand doesn't say too much about the lighter test but lets assume that is two weeks too, with just lighter usage. The difference between the two SSDs is 50 seconds. That is 3.6 seconds a day.

The graphs I linked above show this better IMO. The difference is one task is something like a second, which is negligible.

As said by others above, the Intel 510 definitely has issues, as do all 6Gb/s SSDs like it seems. I rather "waste" an extra second now and then than buy a drive with possible issues.

 

[AppleGoat]

I temporarily missed my SSD today. At work, I have to open these large Photoshop Files (PSB), about a 1-2GBs a pop. And, it was hmm-what-can-I-do-in-the-meantime slow. While the buggy M4, despite possibly beach balling, was much much faster. It seemed like my stock HD couldn't handle it. Is this where you'd noticed the difference between SATA II and III?

 

[Sdahe]

I opened this thread a few months ago... and I would like to know which solid state hard disk is best for a Macbook Pro 15" unibody.. mid 2009. Also where can I buy it..

 

[ELA2]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple. No it's not SATA III, yes it is more expensive, you won't notice any difference in speed or boot up time compared to SATA III (unless you want to impress yourself or friends with some artificial speed test) and most important of all is that you'll have ZERO problems with it.

 

[Sdahe]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

Apple. No it's not SATA III, yes it is more expensive, you won't notice any difference in speed or boot up time compared to SATA III (unless you want to impress yourself or friends with some artificial speed test) and most important of all is that you'll have ZERO problems with it.

Im sorry but I dont understand... Which SSD is that?... You mean I can get a SSD at Apple?...

 

[NickZac]

I opened this thread a few months ago... and I would like to know which solid state hard disk is best for a Macbook Pro 15" unibody.. mid 2009. Also where can I buy it..

Best is a relative term. If you are talking speed, the Vertex 3 or OWC Mercury. If you are talking not just speed, but also reliability, Intel or Crucial and (likely) Samsung 830 although it has not been out as long as the others but thus far gets raving reviews.

 

[antseg]

I opened this thread a few months ago... and I would like to know which solid state hard disk is best for a Macbook Pro 15" unibody.. mid 2009. Also where can I buy it..

Regarding above: Aren't 2009 ones SATA II? Therefore you wouldn't benefit from a SATA III unless you plan on upgrading. You can put one in there, but you won't recognize the difference on your laptop.

The SATA III will allow you for a better SSD in your next laptop, but something like a Samsung 470 will maximize what your laptop can do while being reliable.

 

[NickZac]

Regarding above: Aren't 2009 ones SATA II? Therefore you wouldn't benefit from a SATA III unless you plan on upgrading. You can put one in there, but you won't recognize the difference on your laptop.

The SATA III will allow you for a better SSD in your next laptop, but something like a Samsung 470 will maximize what your laptop can do while being reliable.

While the 2009 MBP only sports SATA 2, the 470 Read and Write speeds were not maxing out the theoretical max of 300 Mbps that SATA 2 allows, where as the current model will. The only SATA 2 drives that maxed SATA 2 were the SandForce driven ones IIRC, such as the OWC and Vertex. Intel's Crucial's, and Samsung's SATA2 lines all read upwards of the SATA2 limit but their write speeds were not quite as high...and of course with the SATA3 drives they make, all have seen boosts in both read and write speeds.